Law Justice Brett Kavanaugh Megathread - Megathread for Brett Kavanaugh, US Supreme Court Justice

they're good justices, brentt

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html

President Donald Trump has picked Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge with extensive legal credentials and a lengthy political record, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, NBC News reported.

Kavanaugh, 53, is an ideological conservative who is expected to push the court to the right on a number of issues including business regulation and national security. The favorite of White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Kavanaugh is also considered a safer pick than some of the more partisan choices who were on the president’s shortlist.

A graduate of Yale Law School who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has the traditional trappings of a presidential nominee to the high court.


If confirmed, the appellate judge would become the second young, conservative jurist Trump has put on the top U.S. court during his first term. Kavanaugh's confirmation would give the president an even bigger role in shaping U.S. policy for decades to come. The potential to morph the federal judiciary led many conservatives to support Trump in 2016, and he has not disappointed so far with the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and numerous federal judges.

At times, he has diverged from the Republican party’s ideological line on important cases that have come before him, including on the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law which Kavanaugh has declined to strike down on a number of occasions in which it has come before him.

Anti-abortion groups quietly lobbied against Kavanaugh, pushing instead for another jurist on Trump’s shortlist, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, ABC News reported in the run-up to Trump’s announcement.

Kavanaugh received his current appointment in 2006 after five years in the George W. Bush administration, where he served in a number of roles including staff secretary to the president. He has been criticized for his attachment to Bush, as well as his involvement in a number of high-profile legal cases.

For instance, Kavanaugh led the investigation into the death of Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, and assisted in Kenneth Starr’s 1998 report outlining the case for Clinton’s impeachment.

Democrats criticized Kavanaugh’s political roles during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Your experience has been most notable, not so much for your blue chip credentials, but for the undeniably political nature of so many of your assignments,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at the time.

“From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to the President’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims Compensation Fund, to ideological judicial nomination fights, if there has been a partisan political fight that needed a very bright legal foot soldier in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there,” Schumer said.

Kavanaugh's work on the Starr report has been scrutinized by Republicans who have said it could pose trouble for the president as he negotiates with special counsel Robert Mueller over the terms of a possible interview related to Mueller's Russia probe. The 1998 document found that Clinton's multiple refusals to testify to a grand jury in connection with Starr's investigation were grounds for impeachment.

In later years, Kavanaugh said that Clinton should not have had to face down an investigation during his presidency. He has said the indictment of a president would not serve the public interest.

Like Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy. If he is confirmed, it will mark the first time ever that a current or former Supreme Court justice has two former clerks become justices, according to an article by Adam Feldman, who writes a blog about the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh teaches courses on the separation of powers, the Supreme Court, and national security at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School, and does charitable work at St. Maria’s Meals program at Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., according to his official biography.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ett-kavanaugh-nomination-by-a-28-point-margin

After a blistering confirmation battle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat for oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court with a skeptical public, a majority of which opposed his nomination. However, Democrats may not be able to exploit this fact in the upcoming elections as much as they hope, because the independent voters overwhelmingly disapprove of their own handling of the nomination by a 28-point margin, a new CNN/SSRS poll finds.

Overall, just 41 percent of those polled said they wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed, compared to 51 percent who said they opposed his confirmation. In previous CNN polls dating back to Robert Bork in 1987, no nominee has been more deeply underwater.

What's interesting, however, is even though Democrats on the surface would seem to have public opinion on their side, just 36 percent approved of how they handled the nomination, compared to 56 percent who disapproved. (Republicans were at 55 percent disapproval and 35 percent approval). A further breakdown finds that 58 percent of independents disapproved of the way the Democrats handled the nomination — compared to 30 percent who approved. (Independents also disapproved of Republicans handling of the matter, but by a narrower 53 percent to 32 percent margin).

Many people have strong opinions on the way the Kavanaugh nomination will play out in November and who it will benefit. The conventional wisdom is that it will help Democrats in the House, where there are a number of vulnerable Republicans in suburban districts where losses among educated women could be devastating, and that it will help Republicans in the Senate, where the tossup races are in red states where Trump and Kavanaugh are more popular.

That said, it's clear that the nomination energized both sides, and that the tactics pursued by the parties turned off independent voters in a way that makes it much harder to predict how this will end up affecting election outcomes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so simply refusing to confirm a nominee is equivalent to dragging that nominee through the mud with outrageous accusations?

i don't think so. if the idea of simply obstructing or stalling the process is novel to you, there's this little thing that happened a couple hundred years ago...

View attachment 557829

nobody involved in that case had to accuse anybody of rape to get what they wanted

There was an old term from our nations earliest days, that has largelly fallen out of use, but you might do well to re-examine it. “Yellow Journalism”. Another was “Muckrakers” Modern problems are not really so modern. They just get new names. Such as “Fake News”.

Back then it was not uncommon for some papers to accuse a candidate or politician of raping sheep (which greatly devalued the sheep. So a serious charge.) But it wasn’t the Information Age. So the spread of bs was somewhat limited by the limits of how many readers a given rag sheet had.
 
To be fair, the repubs did kinda open pandoras box when they stalled the Garland confirmation.
That box was opened long ago

Ted 'Lake Dumper' Kennedy said:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

Who did they nominate instead? Oh right, the judge Kavanaugh is about to replace
 
This isn’t about whether this is a trial or not it’s about setting a dangerous precedent which is: Can a person come forward and ruin a persons life/reputation with a completely baseless accusation? What is stopping the rebuplicans from doing this same trick to a Democratic nominee? The confirmation hearings doesn’t need to be thrown out, there needs to be standards.

The precedent is already set.

You guys might, some of you, be too young to remember Anita Hill appearing at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. You may not know where the word “borked” comes from - hell, you might need Robert Bork’s VCR rental tastes explained to you. You may neither know nor care about Alex Kozinski’s Ninth Circuit confirmation debacle. Sonia Sotomayor was subjected to every procedural trick in the book when she was eventually comfirmed to the Second Circuit, and then she was outright smeared as a racist in her confirmation hearing to SCOTUS. You all remember the stalling of Merrick Garland.

The point I am making is, none of these shenanigans are new. Some of you are seeing them for the first time since you became interested in political issues, but they ain’t new. They are textbook. You have a process at the moment which allows politicians for partisan, non law related reasons, to hurl shit at eminent judges on the grounds of their “moral character” which boils right down to whatever the judge is rumoured to believe about abortions, and the result of that is what you now see.

Every tactic which is procedurally possible is used to try and derail the nomination. Every one.

I agree with you wholeheartedly - there need to be standards and safeguards imposed on this type of hearing if this circus is to regain any respectability as a method of appointing judges. Christ, at this point, even electing judges might be better and everyone knows why that doesn’t work.
 
That box was opened long ago
Ok, I stand corrected. Maybe re-opened would be a more reasonable statement, since the confirmation hearings seems to have been more dignified affairs between Bork and Thomas until recently?

I admit I wasn't aware of the depth of the smear campaigns against those two. Just knew there was some stalling and tomfoolery involved in their hearings.
 
The precedent is already set.

You guys might, some of you, be too young to remember Anita Hill appearing at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. You may not know where the word “borked” comes from - hell, you might need Robert Bork’s VCR rental tastes explained to you. You may neither know nor care about Alex Kozinski’s Ninth Circuit confirmation debacle. Sonia Sotomayor was subjected to every procedural trick in the book when she was eventually comfirmed to the Second Circuit, and then she was outright smeared as a racist in her confirmation hearing to SCOTUS. You all remember the stalling of Merrick Garland.

The point I am making is, none of these shenanigans are new. Some of you are seeing them for the first time since you became interested in political issues, but they ain’t new. They are textbook. You have a process at the moment which allows politicians for partisan, non law related reasons, to hurl shit at eminent judges on the grounds of their “moral character” which boils right down to whatever the judge is rumoured to believe about abortions, and the result of that is what you now see.

Every tactic which is procedurally possible is used to try and derail the nomination. Every one.

I agree with you wholeheartedly - there need to be standards and safeguards imposed on this type of hearing if this circus is to regain any respectability as a method of appointing judges. Christ, at this point, even electing judges might be better and everyone knows why that doesn’t work.

I’ve long pondered the problem of the Supreme Court. And wonder why we need a lifetime body of unaccountable overlords? We certainly don’t need a full court of 9 permanent members. Each State has acChief Justice of their State Court systems. Have these 50 jurists serve as the ultimate Federal Panel in a rotating and random circuit manner. It restores a check and balance on the Fed’s to the States and insures each state has a check on the others.

The other thing that really needs to happen, but sadly won’t unless the States ever drop the Article V bomb, is the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. Direct election of Senators is the root cause of much of the modern disjunction. They are supposed to be the States Ambassadors to the Federal Government. Instead they now serve exclusively themselves and their party. Half of them couldn’t find their own state on a Map.
 
Holy shit it looks like the Republicans knew about the polygraph testing before the hearings and used the prosecutor to try catch Ford in a lie:

it seems clear that Rachel Mitchell knew some of this during last week’s Senate hearing, because she asked Ford two extremely specific questions on the subject of polygraphs. They were:

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

And:

MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?

FORD: Never.

Ford also told Mitchell that she was “scared” of the test, and “didn’t expect it to be as long it was going to be.”

https://archive.fo/POOdT
 
I’ve long pondered the problem of the Supreme Court. And wonder why we need a lifetime body of unaccountable overlords? We certainly don’t need a full court of 9 permanent members. Each State has acChief Justice of their State Court systems. Have these 50 jurists serve as the ultimate Federal Panel in a rotating and random circuit manner. It restores a check and balance on the Fed’s to the States and insures each state has a check on the others.

The other thing that really needs to happen, but sadly won’t unless the States ever drop the Article V bomb, is the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. Direct election of Senators is the root cause of much of the modern disjunction. They are supposed to be the States Ambassadors to the Federal Government. Instead they now serve exclusively themselves and their party. Half of them couldn’t find their own state on a Map.

It's a democratic deficit check. Various democratic states have them to act as a brake in case a party attempts to hold the pendulum in a fit of pique. The uk has the house of Lords and most unicaramel states usually have a constitutional court of some description.

The idea of the SC is to hold both the sitting president and the legislature in check. By it's very nature it is meant to be conservative in outlook and the progs loathe it as a result. With them either threatening or breathing down the necks of the Dems they are trying to resist the potential of Trump locking it down with constituionalists which is likely to stop an excessive future democrat legislature or presidency for a good 30-40 years.
 
dat plot twist. Can't wait for the movie. "The Character Assassination of Brett Kavanaugh by the Coward Christine Ford"

It's a democratic deficit check. Various democratic states have them to act as a brake in case a party attempts to hold the pendulum in a fit of pique. The uk has the house of Lords and most unicaramel states usually have a constitutional court of some description.

The idea of the SC is to hold both the sitting president and the legislature in check. By it's very nature it is meant to be conservative in outlook and the progs loathe it as a result. With them either threatening or breathing down the necks of the Dems they are trying to resist the potential of Trump locking it down with constituionalists which is likely to stop an excessive future democrat legislature or presidency for a good 30-40 years.
It still has the issue that as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, they can effectively rule by a simple majority that the constitution actually means the opposite of what it says and there's nothing to stop them. That doesn't sit right with me but I have no idea what to do about it that wouldn't make things worse.
 
Stop the “due process” train in this discussion, though. A confirmation hearing is not a criminal trial, and conflating the two makes the confirmation hearing seem like a much more respectable operation than it actually is.

A confirmation hearing exists to gather evidence. That’s it. It does not have any standard of proof, let alone the criminal one. If Kavanaugh was facing criminal charges (he isn’t and he won’t), he would be entitled to every guarantee of fair and due process the US Constitution affords. Plus he would be entitled to have his guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, he would be entitled to have his guilt proven, full stop, and then there would be a burden of proof on his accusers.

He doesn’t have any of these rights because a confirmation hearing is a bullshit fishing expedition with overtones of a Vatican beatification process. It is nothing but an opportunity to play silly buggers and traduce an individual for political gain under the guise of discharging the constitutional responsibility to give “advice and consent” on presidential appointments. It is a shitflinging contest with the nominee the target of the shit.

It is a bullshit process and it produces bullshit results.

The bullshit will not stop until the process is made less open to abuse.

Uhh.. yeah, there's something coming up actually, where we can do just that. Not by voting to change the rules, but to change the participants. Anyone who performed a "bullshit fishing expedition" on the time they were trusted with by the american people to make a good choice, should be voted out of office. Unless this kind of circus is what you actually want.

It's just that simple. You leave a relatively open process because these people are the representatives of the citizens. They're asking questions on our behalf. If they stop working on your behalf, stop voting for them.
 
dat plot twist. Can't wait for the movie. "The Character Assassination of Brett Kavanaugh by the Coward Christine Ford"


It still has the issue that as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, they can effectively rule by a simple majority that the constitution actually means the opposite of what it says and there's nothing to stop them. That doesn't sit right with me but I have no idea what to do about it that wouldn't make things worse.

Which is EXACTLY what MArbury vs Madison was. The Court granted itself SWEEPING Powers not granted to it by the Constitution. And of course it was allowed to stand because Precident!
 
Which is EXACTLY what MArbury vs Madison was. The Court granted itself SWEEPING Powers not granted to it by the Constitution. And of course it was allowed to stand because Precident!
Was this not inevitable though, given their role in government? What could possibly have ever prevented that from happening?
 
The latest is the FBI is rumored to have said ”Fuck This Shit!” After 2 days of dealing with this stupidity, and will deliver their report in the morning.
Source?
Ironic to see Saturday Night Live mocking Brett Kavannaugh while they protected Al Franken. https://www.breitbart.com/big-holly...stein-bombshells-nbc-mocks-kavanaugh-via-snl/
>credibly accused

Loving the way the term "credible accusation" became a new meme among both the left and right.
 
Sonia Sotomayor...was outright smeared as a racist in her confirmation hearing to SCOTUS.
even politifact is willing to call this one 'half-true,' which pretty much makes it true for normal people
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...omayor-comment-Latina-women-versus-white-men/
upload_2018-10-3_11-44-49.png


here is the quote in question that earned her the label of 'racist':

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

'racist' is not really the word i would use, but she certainly factors race into her view of the world. viva la raza!

edit: so she wasn't smeared
 
Last edited:
And lets be honest here, his drinking and drug use appears to be that of a normal sr high and college student respectively.

Of course, and despite being a behaviour traditionally more likely to drive away conservative voters it is instead a club wielded against him by dems. Liz Swisher likes to bleat on about downplaying his fun times being perjury, knowing full well that she'd still be doing the rounds had he not done so except in that case it would be being critical of the behaviour relative to the job role.
 
Back